Slashdot Mirror
Fallout 3, RE 5 in 2008, Final Fantasy 360 Never
In addition to the truly excellent trailer, yesterday Bethesda Softworks let slip the platforms on which Fallout 3 will be playable. CVG reports on an article in the upcoming issue of Game Informer magazine, which describes some of the gameplay and states the title will be on offer for the PC, 360, and PlayStation 3 sometime in Fall of 2008. Meanwhile, Eurogamer is reporting that Capcom won't be letting Resident Evil 5 out of the holding pen until at least April of next year. For now they're relying on the Wii port of the title and other offerings to see them through the year. Finally, if you were hoping to play Final Fantasy XIII on the Xbox 360, you'll be waiting a long time. IGN has word that there are no plans for any FF games on Microsoft's console.
If you're into Fallout 3, don't miss the original Fallout 3 Van Buren design documents. Cool stuff. Going to be interesting to see if anything survives from there.
I would really appreciate it if someone paste the article text since I'm suck behind a filter.
See http://arstechnica.com/journals/thumbs.ars/2007/06 /06/busting-rumors-sonys-ps3-price-drop-and-square s-360-final-fantasy-plans
They explain that Square said the 360 was a "blank page", which isn't the same thing as a flat out "Not gonna happen".
Nathan
Does it really surprise anyone though? FF is huge (perhaps as an understatement) in Japan where Microsoft has a pretty tiny share. Releasing exclusively would be suicide, and though there is a large market in the US, I would expect there's enough PS3 owners and enough would-be PS3 owners on the fence that would pick up a PS3 because of FF that it wouldn't necessarily be worth the added effort to port to xbox.
:-P
And please God, don't let them contract out to another company to do a half-assed port.
After the last two Final Fantasy games, it's obvious that at the very least Square-Enix doesn't care about Final Fantasy any more. (The "last two" by my definition being XI, an uninspired EverQuest clone with moogles, and XII, an offline version of an uninspired EverQuest clone with moogles and bunny-women.)
Seriously, after playing XII and discovering that the game really does play itself to the point where you're only there to guide the characters through the map, I really don't see any reason to get any more Final Fantasy games. Ever.
Add in that the wonderful "storytelling" in FFXII sees a story wherein every character they've introduced through the start of the *tutorial* dies by the end of the tutorial, randomly jumping to some characters you've never met and really don't care about, and you've got a game with no gameplay and one of the worst stories I've ever read.
Yeah, I know, there are some twists concerning that last statement in the story, but the concept of the first several minutes of a story is to hook the audience. Introducing a whole slew of characters and then *killing every last one of them* (even if it later turns out they miraculously survived) does not create a compelling story. Especially when the main character they randomly dump on you turns out to be, hands down, the most annoying Final Fantasy character I can recall.
So let the PS3 keep their Final Fantasy. It won't help sales. Final Fantasy is dead, Square-Enix has decided to kill it.
I really wish they just won't make a STALKER with hookers but rather a RPG with rich content. Seeing NextGens in the platform list is not IMHO good omen.
I hope they don't mangle the PC Fallout 3 UI to match what would look good on a console (like they did in Oblivion) - or at least make the UI moddable. Inventory/spell management was a giant pain in vanilla Oblivion (huge icons/font). Off topic, but I have the same worries about how Bioshock will feel on a PC as well...
Not that I didn't like Oblivion, just that it wasn't so much an RPG with such a linear story. Fallout was great because there were so many different ways to complete the game, or even many of the quests. Oblivion was more FPS than RPG because the decisions you make have little to no impact on the outcome of the game. So please Bethesda, don't ruin such a great game franchise!
Follow this link http://www.square-enix.com/jp/ir/e/stock/stockhold er/ and look at entry number four. Sony owns 8.5% of Square Enix. I thought Nintendo had owned a part of Square at one point in time, but I don't recongize any of the others as being either Nintendo or MS related. If MS or Nintendo want to tell/force Square Enix to develop for their consoles, then they might want to buy a large share of that company.
I agree.
What I don't understand is the GP's hypocrisy in saying "Square never innovates" and saying "I didn't like FFXII because it was too different" at the same time. Either you really do want another clone or you want originality. If you don't like something that's original (like the ability system in FF8), at least have respect for the developers for thinking out of the box rather than simply playing it safe. Whenever you innovate, you're going to come out with some things some people really like and some people really don't. I much prefer this to a game everyone thinks is mediocre.
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
It was excellent if you were worried that they wouldn't understand the franchise AT ALL The trailer was basically a homage to the series.
p Now, it remains to be seen that they can actually implement it. I'm afraid they know very well that the game won't live up to the ideals, and they just wanted something out there to placate the masses (how ironic!). That it's being targeted at consoles isn't encouraging at all. Remember, this is a game where you expect to be able to -- if you so please -- murder children and fuck {wo}men. If it ain't gritty, it ain't fallout. It remains to be seen how you can get the grit in there for platforms which are basically aimed at children.Belief is the currency of delusion.
The heart and soul of Final Fantasy Hironobu Sakaguchi (The Co-Founder of square as well as the creator and executive producer of Final Fantasy 1-12) and Kensuke Tanaka (developer of Squares's online service and producer on many FF titles) are both gone and are with Mistwalker developing games exclusively for the 360. So dont worry 360 fans will get all the RPG goodness they can stand. Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey are all on the way, it will be interesting to see if Final Fantasy is more Sakaguchi or more Square-Enix. IMHO Final Fantasy without Sakaguchi is like Guitar Hero without Harmonix.
Did I read the summary wrong, or is there actually going to be RE 5 on Wii? I really hope so! Especially since Konami decided that even though it was technically possible, it didn't make sense to put Silent Hill 5 on Wii (booo Konami!)
Fallout came out in 1997 and Fallout 2 came out in 1998. Looks like fallout 3 is coming out for the 10th anniversary of Fallout 2. Who is the target market? 20 somethings that still have time to do solo gaming?
Looks great and I would love to play it.
I just do not have the time for solo games any more. The only time I have for myself is reading in the bathroom or on the bus. Maybe I could play it if it was on a handheld like a psp. Also, bonding with other would also help me justify the time, so co-op or multiplayer would be good too. My fiance and I love playing shades of gray type games...what better than Fallout!
"Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
Don't forget, you could also become a porn star, get married, and sell your spouse into slavery...
Something tells me if this goes to consoles, we'll have a brand new franchise for people to say how horrible it is, and how it corrupts 'teh children!'...
Nephilium
The trailer's exciting to Fallout fans because it is in line with the intro movies from the first two Fallout games ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=WkBNKa2KXZE , http://youtube.com/watch?v=e3PXiV95kwA ). There's a lot of fear in the fan community that Bethesda will "ruin" the franchise; this trailer is Bethesda's way of saying that they're on the same page as the fans. Whether or not they follow through on the promise is another matter.
Also, the trailer is just plain good from a production/drama standpoint. It's a teaser trailer, which, pretty much by definition, is not meant to show you an MTV-style montage of game footage (those trailers are the most boring to me), but just let you know, "The game exists, we're working on it, here's something to let you know how excited we are about the movie." Compare this to teaser trailers from movies like "Strange Days" that featured nothing but an extreme closeup of Ralph Fiennes talking for 2 minutes.
-BbT
What I don't understand is the GP's hypocrisy in saying "Square never innovates" and saying "I didn't like FFXII because it was too different" at the same time.
I have read the GPs post several times, and nowhere can I find him claiming that "Square never innovates". Or am I reading the wrong post?
claims they are producing a "Post-aocalyptic murderous rampage simulator" that is teaching our our children how to brutally slaughter innocent supermutants, hideous aliens and horrible genetically enginereed kiling machines.
Cue Bethesda's respons : "Yeah, what of it?"
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Someone for Square Enix is definately going to be fired over this mistake of not releasing FFXIII for the 360. XBOX 360 is the current next gen console who has sold the most and continues to gain speed. Don't believe it...check out the lovely sales statistics from Austrailia (1 million games sold in 14 months, a new record for any console). Sure FF has been mostly PS exclusivebut with FFXI and the new FF on 360 plus many releases for other portable consoles recently it makes it only the next best move to add it to the last untapped platform. And why not follow the other games and their reasoning, like Resident Evil, Devil May Cry, Ace Combat, etc. All have made convincing cases for reasons to expand to XBOX 360. There are also conflicting reports from Square Enix President and the developers of FFXIII who claim that they would choose the 360 platform of Sony because of the ease of development and cost.
So when they release FFXIII and its numbers suck they can only blame themselves. I know that the millions of 360 user would love to enjoy FFXIII...and perhaps a re-release of FFI on the XBOX Live Arcade...hint hint!
I'll postulate that the game can't be a good Fallout and NOT draw his vexatious attention.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
The teaser echoes the unforgettable intro to Fallout One.
It is precisely what every fan of the original has been praying for.
Fallout is one of a handful of RPGs that exist outside the fantasy framework of D&D and Star Wars. There are no generic post-apocalyptic games.
You honestly think that the PS3 and 360 are aimed at children? Considering that the best sellers on both these consoles' predecessors weren't exactly child-friendly (like GTA (killing random passerbys for the hell of it, having sex with prostitutes) and Halo) and the current hits (like Resistance and Gears of War (where you can chainsaw your opponent while he's on the ground and have blood splatter all over the screen)) are also quite gory, I wouldn't say so.
So they'll give it an "M" rating and be done with it. Just because it's on a console doesn't mean they'll tone it down.
As a Fallout fan, I found it more worrying than exciting. The constant thing in the intro movies for Fallout, Fallout 2 and even Fallout Tactics was the human element, and this trailer here was the total opposite. The Fallout intro had the soldiers shooting the guy and laughing, followed by a soldier in front of the flag, commercials (buy war bonds!) and an account of the war. Fallout 2 had a film about leaving the vault, with short-sighted advice ("line up in an orderly fashion", "wear dark glasses") and, of course, vault dwellers going out to meet the rest of humanity and getting gunned down as they wave. Fallout Tactics had some BoS guys zooming across the desert in their truck, listening to music and stopping for a magazine. You saw this view of human nature throughout the games as well (Fallout Tactics less than the other two, but it was a different kind of game).
The Fallout 3 trailer was completely missing that human element. It had the old-timey music and the bombed out city, followed by scary music and a robotic guy in armor. Without the "this is what we are, and we'll be the same no matter what world we live in" attitude, I am not at all reassured that Fallout 3 will live up to its predecessors. I don't expect a game intro level of quality from a teaser trailer, but I did expect to see the above. If the armor suited guy had been doing something human (polishing his helmet or pissing, perhaps), and they had delayed the scary music and view of the city until after he had shown up, I would feel a lot better.
Not at all it doesn't. Look at the armored guys in the Fallout intro, then look at the guy in this teaser again. I'm afraid they've got all the incidentals right, but totally missed the soul.
Another thing I'm worried about is minigames. The lockpicking minigame in Oblivion was pure torture on the PC, and even finding the mouse pointer so that you could click auto attempt was annoying! The persuasion minigame didn't at least penalize mouse users, but it was pretty pointless and broke immersion. So hopefully Bethesda learned their lesson, and does not have any minigames in FO3.
That is the best reason I've ever heard for not liking the teaser. No one I've ever seen has been so articulate or so damn reasonable. Congratulations.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deeply or not at all."
Dude, you must be remembering some other 16-bit 2d RPGs. The pre-rendered dungeons in FF III and onward (up to VI) are just as aribtrary and devoid of stuff; big, empty tiled floors, a treasure chest at the end of a hidden hallway or whatever, walls that are all the same, save a few spot sprites.
Main reason battle areas were so sparse is to allow maximum manuverability when fighting enemies, and to keep the polycount down. 6 enemies, 3 party members, and two spell effects were at the limit of the PS2.
Outside areas had smaller draw distances and areas so they had more detail.
Contrast to non-fighting areas. Towns, the inside of shops, etc. These were heavily detailed and full of stuff.
It's all about what the PS2 can crank out.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
We're not talking about story, plot, delivery, or mechanics. We're talking about FF XII being an "uninspired EverQuest clone". How can a game be simultaneously innovative, uninspired, and a clone?
Would you call your house an uninspired clone? If not, then you must be a fanboy. Right?
I don't know about that. Since FF IV power leveling has been just one of many strategies, the least elegant of them anyway. In these games (with exception of XI) you'd notice:
* Many enemies or bosses had clever ways to defeat quickly which were fun to discover and talk about with other players.
* You can beat the 'interesting' enemies or bosses even at the lowest levels.
* Some foes which you really couldn't beat unless you leveled significantly and discovered key items or skills. These foes were generally not "counted" for anything and were just fun to take on.
From IV and on you can find tons of guides and tips on how to complete low level, timed, or bestiary-complete games. It's less about the strategy required to beat the game (usually very simple), more about strategy to complete sidequests or achieve some goal not having anything to do with the story. And the games are even designed to accomodate such players.
I mean, why do you think they have the "Firefly" accessory in FFXII? Or why Quickenings ignore enemy stats and your current level?
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
...then I realized that most of the gambits I thought I needed you didn't really need anyway.
Ally: KO? Useless.
Ally: status? Mostly useless
Doing an Ally: name or Ally: Any with buffing/healing actions does it on demand anyway.
Those precise actions become useful later when you want to do things like auto-berserk a single character and then buff them or lure+reverse them later for particular nasty optional boss fights.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
I was waiting and waiting and waiting for a return to the hat-switching job system from FF V and Tactics. Never happened. And while I thought the esper, materia, and junction systems of VI-VIII were interesting, you were still locked into character-specific abilities. Which was cool in ways for the story-detailed games with parties that you could mix/match. But I still missed it...
Then X-2 came out. Dress spheres. Meh, at least they remembered to make them _look good_ in the different outfits; that alone could make up for an unbalanced job. That was half of the fun.
FF V realized that over 10 years ago. Once you got all the jobs, it was three girls and a guy. And the girls had particular detailed outfits for tiny 16x16 sprites.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
1. False dichotomy all over again. The world isn't neatly divided into 100% clones and 100% innovative stuff. The devil is often in the details. One can innovate in detail X (and in a crap way at that), yet be a clone of something else in every other aspect. I.e., just because FF XII tried some new (and thoroughly crap) plot delivery, doesn't mean that the rest of the game can't feel like an Everquest clone.
Really, join an OCPD support group already, if your world is that devoid of shades and nuances.
2. That simultaneous stuff you rant against, are your own straw men. You created a straw man contradiction where none actually existed. Have a hard time addressing the real points without twisting the meaning into something that wasn't actually said?
The original poster never said that the game is simultaneously innovative and a clone. You seem to have inferred the "innovative" part yourself, presumably from its being different from the previous FF games. Because the original poster sure didn't say "it's innovative." And it's a bullshit inferrence in its own right. Something can differ from the previous model jolly well by copying something else.
E.g., if I were to start wearing a suit and tie tomorrow, it would be simultaneously (A) different from my previous attire, yet (B) a clone of someone else's suit.
That is all that was actually said: FF XI and FF XII differ from the previous games, by (A) copying Everquest mechanics (especially in FF XI), and (B) by some very uninspired plot delivery (in FF XII). In more words, but that's the summary of it. Exactly what's the contradiction there? 'Cause I don't see any.
At any rate, if such contradictions annoy you that much, then, you know, don't make them up. There, problem solved. And it sure beats watching you argue against your own bogus arguments.
It looks like the whole point went right over your head, but I guess that wasn't entirely unexpected.
First of all, that house was just an example for a very specific sub-set of the problem: that just being different doesn't make it good. The point was _not_ about also being an uninspired clone at that point.
Basically, just more fallacious sophistry. Why am I not surprised?
Second, yes, even in that example, that house _could_ be uninspired (it's not exactly the best idea for a house), and it can be a clone (if it copies enough from another existing house.)
But, on the whole, you're just tiresome. Fallacies and bullshit sophistry are idiot loser tactics in their own right, but it's kinda expected that they at least be convincing or easy to swallow. Building a _second_ rant on nothing more than pretending to be unable to understand even simple English or follow even _elementary_ logic is... tiresome.
But then maybe I should just apply Hanlon's Razor: "never attribute to malice, that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Maybe you _are_ too stupid to follow elementary logic, and no malice is involved.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Having played both the original evercrack as well as currently playing evercrack 2 I think I can say that FFXII really wasn't all that much of a clone, other than they are both pretty much LRPGs. In which case you're pretty much going to see some similarity that's demanded by the nature of such a game.
I'm a big Fallout fan and I'm decidedly unexcited. This trailer shows no gameplay and doesn't lay to rest any of my fears concerning dialog, meaningful choices with consequences, good story, good game mechanics etc etc etc. Yeah, the setting and feel is important, but it's only a part of it. If they only get that right and none of the rest, basically it wouldn't be more than a STALKER clone.
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
The vast majority of jRPGs seem to be like that, but are you including in your set only the aforementioned jRPGs, turn based RPGs, or all sorts?
There is an RPG model that is very much more fun than "kill the goblin, kill the goblin, kill the goblin, puzzle, boss, kill the goblin, kill the goblin, kill the RED goblin, puzzle, boss." Games like Baldur's Gate, Fallout... I'm even tempted to include Deus Ex and System Shock, even though they're not strictly RPGs by the colloquial meaning of the term. The general philosophy seems to be that no fight should be so boring as to be trivial. Now, this isn't totally true, such as in Baldur's Gate II when you can mow down hordes of goblins or kobolds just by clicking attack near them and letting your mages and priests hit them with rocks or sticks, but usually there's some substance to a battle where just hitting them will either get you killed or drain your resources so much that further battles would force you to quit (attrition I suppose).
Baldur's Gate II especially. Sometimes you could get killed in 15 seconds, sometimes you could haul ass and pwn everyone in the same amount of time, but it depends on preparation, build, and how you approach the conflict. There's a difficulty, really, with pure turn-based split screen battles, in really making those epi-stat parameters stand out: where you are in a room, how far away you are, how many people are around you, area effect, etc: Having those parameters really lets a designer play with his world and provide a very entertaining fight experience.
Those games also all share the "big man on campus" philosophy, as I like to think of it, where there are characters which, should you choose to engage them, would always either kill you outright or at least provide a MAJOR challenge. Sometimes it's a naturalistic thing, where you don't feel like your characters are all Gods just because they're the only ones who seem to be able to pick up a weapon in the entire gameverse. Other times, though, it provides an offset to the usual stomping that your party tends to do: if you're bored with that, you have bigger fish to fry. And when there's a spatial element to the gameplay, designers can also include encounters that are flat out impossible, so you know when and how to run away. It really fleshes out the game, gives more fulfilling goals for your characters to achieve, and is sometimes really tactic and strategy-heavy. In general, the "Run" button in jRPGs is only for last minute ditches when you know you couldn't handle it, even though you should've been able to. It's really boring to "run" from a really strong enemy like that anyway.
People into Fallout are also likely to be into System Shock, etc: so I figured I'd point out that in the upcoming game Bioshock there is probably going to be a large "big man on campus" effect with the Big Daddys roaming around.
I abhor the usual jRPG system to the point where I will really never play one. I'm never impressed with the story, the environment gives me a sense of deja vu even if it is apparently "new", and the battle system blows. Now, I haven't touched a jRPG in many years. For all I know all the FFs after 8 have a spatial dimension to combat, or other nuances to combat, that invalidate my anti-jRPG claims. But the FFs stopped impressing me after FFV/Tactics (Tactics is sort of an aside).
I'm kind of surprised that you would say that about RPGs in a Fallout thread. In my experience Fallout was all about keeping on your toes; you never know what you would get.
Oh, and it's the 21st century. Let me kill a @$%^ing civilian. jRPGs also seem to love pigeonholing the characters, so that allowing you to do interesting things would invalidate the storyline's treatment of your party. Though I also think it's just lazy. It's also why towns in jRPGs are little dots on the map with a few shops and a few other houses (almost all of which will be employed in the main quest or a side quest). There's nothing to do there. For games billed as being atmospheric and imagi
Well, that's actually a valid point of view, and mostly true too. I think the "Everquest clone" applies to FFXI mostly.
Just to clarify my position in this thread: I'm just railing against the, basically, "if you don't like it, you're against innovation" and "but if it's different from the predecessors, then it's innovative, so it can't be a clone" fanboyisms. I've really had it up to here with that kind of thing. There are ways to be either pro- or anti-FF without resorting to the standard fallacies. But as long as you don't commit either, heck, I'm not going to tell you to like it or dislike it.
The GG[..]GP thought it's an Everquest clone. I don't necessarily think that's true on the whole (although there are some borrowed elements, intentionally or not), but I also don't think beating him upside the head with blatant fallacies and accusations of hypocrisy is the way to go about disproving those points. There are ways to say "well, at least they're trying something different" without inventing contradictions and hypocrisy accusations based on straw-men and twisting meanings.
That's, in a nutshell, the whole thing I was concerned with.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
...on Microsoft's console.
Except, y'know, for the one that already exists.
Chris Mattern
I guess a note to people that haven't seen the other Fallout trailers, they are worth checking out. They were poignant and re-watchable, and at the time of Fallout 1, nothing to compare it against. Also, the Fallout 2 made me appreciate Louie Armstrong's "A Kiss to Build a Dream On" in a way I hadn't before.
...
War never changes
Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story
Great, glad there's a style for you. Myself, however, I abhore games without pre-composed structure and storylines. As an artist and creative person, I'm much more comfortable with a distinct creator/audience separation. If there's a particular conceptual reason to break down that barrier, I'm all for it, but to me, PC/American RPGs are not "works" so much as they are toys, and I have no interest in toys, anymore. I play games as an alternative to literature and cinema.
The bottom line is that we play games for fundimentally different reasons. We also see the role of games as being fundimentally different.
The way I see it, PC/American RPGs are a way of playing out fantasies, "what-if" scenarios, if you will, and have an emphasis on super-imposing yourself as the main character. It makes sense. It's part of the developmental process; children do it all the time as a way of defining identity, they try out different characters, and in their own worlds, can do things that they normally couldn't or shouldn't do. Many times, these fantasies can persist into adulthood. It's probably healthy, in fact, the popularity of "sandbox" style games, may show that there's a distinct lack of outlets for adults to play out such fantasies, since our society has become so obsessed with growing up.
I've heard comments like yours a lot, before. Friends who wouldn't touch a Zelda game because, "You can't kill the NPCs". I think it goes to show that there is a strong desire to play out fantasies like this.
I, on the other hand, for one reason or another, have little interest in fantasies. I'd rather analyze and be engaged in a good epic piece of music, film, or video game. The way I see it, I play games for the same reason I watch movies, but games allow me to play "videographer" (which is funny, since it's also my profession), and chose my own pacing. I want to experience someone elses work of narrative, for my own entertainment, AND because I love the analytical inspiration it sometimes provides. Granted, games are in their infancy in terms of storytelling level, but that is changine rapidly, and probably the most interesting thing to watch is the fairly quick maturation that games are taking, it's very exciting.
I'm guessing that a lot of what I'm saying will sound very dull and unrewarding to yourself, and that's okay. Ballders Gate and Deus Ex seem incredibly dull and uninteresting to me. Now, Fallout is starting to intrigue me, because of it's very unique style, so I might have to go try it out.
But basically, yes, we play games for very different reasons. The fact that they're both called "RPGs" is very misleading and wrong (jRPGs aren't even RPG... I wish we would call them something different, but I can't seem to find a term without defaulting to "interactive movie" which is incredibly demeaning and wrong).
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.